JUDGMENT : This writ petition is filed challenging Exts.P4 and P6 and for a direction to the 2nd respondent, the District Collector to refix the market value of the property by estimating the probable market value during August, 2008 after hearing the petitioner and for other reliefs. 2. Ext.P4 is an order passed by the District Collector pursuant to directions issued by the Court in WP(C) No. 22501/2006 fixing the value of the property at Rs.1,75,000/- per Are and the petitioner was called upon to remit the said amount, failing which, petitioner was informed that action would be taken under Section 44 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act. Ext.P6 is a letter dated 25/10/2011 informing the petitioner that his request for remitting the value of property and the fair value fixed by the Government cannot be accepted. 3. The short facts which arises for consideration in the writ petition are as under:- Petitioner is a company which purchased 25 cents of land in Sy.No.1276/3 of Karikode Village as per sale deed dated 3/12/1998. The petitioner also constructed factory building, office and other structures and has established a curry powder factory. On 30/11/2001, petitioner received a notice from the District Collector stating that the original owner of the property, viz., the 5th respondent, was liable to pay sales tax dues. The amount payable was Rs.45,20,997/-. Though the petitioner filed a suit as OS No.57/2002 challenging the revenue recovery proceedings, the same came to be dismissed. Petitioner therefore filed WP(C) No. 22501/2006 challenging the revenue recovery proceedings. During the pendency of the revenue recovery proceedings, further proceedings were stayed on condition of the petitioner providing a bank guarantee for Rs.10,00,000/-. Petitioner had submitted the bank guarantee which is still in force. The writ petition was disposed of directing the District Collector to inspect the property and estimate the present value of the property excluding the value of building and machinery. It was made clear that if the petitioner offers the market value, the same will be collected and the attachment lifted. Ext.P3 is the judgment dated 29/8/2008. Petitioner submits that though the judgment was delivered in the year 2008, no action was taken by the 2nd respondent for a long time. However, as per letter dated 6/12/2010, petitioner was served with Ext.P4. Ext.P3 is the judgment dated 29/8/2008. Petitioner submits that though the judgment was delivered in the year 2008, no action was taken by the 2nd respondent for a long time. However, as per letter dated 6/12/2010, petitioner was served with Ext.P4. Petitioner filed an objection stating that he is willing to pay the fair value fixed by the Government, which came to be rejected in terms of Ext.P6. 4. Petitioner further stated that he purchased another 18.20 ares in the very same survey number at the rate of Rs.28,626/- per Are. Ext.P8 is the said document. It is also submitted that the petitioner is willing to surrender 25 cents of land from the extent of property which he had purchased in lieu of the property against which the revenue recovery proceedings are initiated. It is in the said circumstances that this writ petition has been filed inter alia contending that the revenue authorities have not complied with the directions issued by this Court in judgment dated 29/8/2008 in WP(C) No. 22501/2006 and that the value of the property was highly inflated and has no relationship whatsoever with the fair value fixed for the property in the year 2010. According to the petitioner, the value of the property prevailing during 2008 ought to have been fixed pursuant to the judgment in WP(C) No. 22501/2006. It is stated that the valuation had been made at Rs.1,75,000/- per Are without any basis. 5. Counter affidavit has been filed wherein it is contended that the property originally belonged to Ms/.High Range Agencies, Thodupuzha which became liable for payment of Rs.45,20,997/- as sales tax dues during the period 1994-95. Revenue recovery proceedings were taken against the defaulters, Sri.Shaji Sebastian and Sri.Avirachan George. The property of Sri.Shaji Sebastian was also attached. On enquiry it was revealed that Sri.Avirachan George had transferred an extent of 76.38 ares of land to his wife Smt.Priya Mathew as per sale deed dated 20/1/1994 which was for evading payment of tax arrears due to the Government. From the above 76.38 Areas, Smt.Priya Mathew transferred 10.11 ares of land to Sri.George Cyriac as per sale deed dated 8/12/1995. Sri.George Cyriac transferred the above property to the petitioner company as per sale deed dated 3/12/1998. It is submitted that the balance property which was transferred to Smt.Priya Mathew was sold for Rs.1,26,500/-. Similarly, the movable properties were also sold for Rs.21,350/-. Sri.George Cyriac transferred the above property to the petitioner company as per sale deed dated 3/12/1998. It is submitted that the balance property which was transferred to Smt.Priya Mathew was sold for Rs.1,26,500/-. Similarly, the movable properties were also sold for Rs.21,350/-. Thereafter, steps were taken to recover the amount by sale of property transferred in the name of the petitioner. It is further stated that as per judgment in WP(C) No. 22501/2006, the property was valued at Rs.1,75,000/- per are. But the petitioner did not comply with the terms of the judgment. It is submitted that the property is liable for the sales tax dues and since the petitioner did not comply with the directions as per the judgment in WP(C) No. 22501/2006, he is not entitled for any other reliefs. The respondent also denied that the market value can be fixed as per the fair value which is only for the purpose of computation of stamp duty. 6. An additional affidavit has been filed by the 3rd respondent in which it is stated that during the pendency of the writ petition, the property was again valued and the value per are is fixed at Rs.1,90,000/-. As per the fair value register, the value of the property is Rs.60,000/- per are and 50% increase has been made by the Government which cannot be the basis for arriving at the market value. 7. Heard the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondent. 8. There is no dispute about the fact that the property of the petitioner is liable for the debt due to the Government as sales tax dues. Petitioner challenged the revenue recovery proceedings earlier which was disposed of by this Court as per judgment dated 29/8/2008. While rejecting all the contentions of the petitioner, taking into account the fact that the petitioner had started an industry in the property, the following directions have been issued: "In the circumstances, and on equitable grounds, I direct the District Collector to inspect the property and estimate the present per cent value of the property excluding the value of building and machinery, which are put up for the industry, and if petitioner offers the market value, the same will be collected from petitioner and attachment will be lifted." 9. It appears that the valuation had been made only after more than two years wherein the District Collector formed an opinion that the value is Rs.1,75,000/- per Are and in the additional counter affidavit filed on 3/10/2016, it is stated that the value of the property will be come to Rs.1,90,000/- per are. 10. According to the petitioner, the valuation as on the date, 2008, ought to be considered for the purpose of assessing the market value and secondly, the Government ought to have adopted the fair value of the property. As far as fair value is concerned, there cannot be any dispute that it does not reflect the actual market value. It is a value for the limited purpose of payment of stamp duty and cannot be termed as market value. 11. Market value is determined based on the value of the property in the neighbouring locality at which a prudent seller may sell his property. This can be ascertained based on the value shown in the documents by which such transfers had taken place taking into account comparable sale deeds and on local enquiry. Therefore, when the District Collector fixes the market value based on enquiry conducted by the said authority, I do not think that this Court will be justified in interfering with the same. Whether the property will fetch a fair price or not are matters which can be decided at present, unless the property is sold. If a proper market value is not obtained, the Government can as well purchase the property as "bought in land". Therefore, I do not think that the challenge to Exts.P4 and P6 are sustainable. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioner however submits that they are willing to offer another item of property in the very same locality and adjacent to the aforesaid property in lieu of the subject property. Whether the said property can be taken as a substitute for the property in question depends upon the comparability of the property. If the said property is having the same market value, of course, the Government can consider the said aspect as well before proceeding further in the matter. In the writ petition, petitioner had produced Ext.P8 sale deed. The extent of property involved is 18.20 ares in Old Sy.No.1276/3. The Re.Sy No. is 89/2 in Block No.33. If the said property is having the same market value, of course, the Government can consider the said aspect as well before proceeding further in the matter. In the writ petition, petitioner had produced Ext.P8 sale deed. The extent of property involved is 18.20 ares in Old Sy.No.1276/3. The Re.Sy No. is 89/2 in Block No.33. It is therefore apparent that the property now offered by the petitioner is adjacent to the property covered by Ext.P1 sale deed. 13. Having regard to such an offer being made by the petitioner, I am of the view that the revenue authorities may consider whether the property covered by Ext.P8 is comparable and similar to the property covered by Ext.P1, excluding the buildings and structures constructed by the petitioner in Ext.P1. If so, definitely the petitioner can permit the 25 cents of property covered by Ext.P8 to be sold in lieu of property covered by Ext.P1. However, if it is found that both the properties are not comparable, especially in regard to its market value, it is always open for the revenue authorities to proceed further in accordance with law. In the result, this writ petition is disposed of as under:- (i) That the 2nd respondent shall verify and ascertain whether the 25 cents of property offered by the petitioner as being part of Ext.P8 sale deed is comparable with the property covered by Ext.P1 (excluding buildings, plant and machinery) and has the same market value. (ii) If it is so, the revenue authorities may exclude Ext.P1 property from being sold and proceed against the property offered by the petitioner. (iii) If the properties are not comparable and will not fetch the same market value, it shall be open for the revenue authorities to proceed further in accordance with law.